The request for a Transport and General Works Order relating to the Heathrow Airtrack Scheme has been withdrawn. BAA have indicated that the inability to solve the problem of increased delays at Level Crossings along the route is the major reason for its withdrawal.
Pedantic recently looked at the issue of Level Crossings and traffic levels, and this has been a major barrier for BAA to overcome in their plans for some time. To a certain extent, increased Level Crossing closure times has always been an unsolvable problem along the proposed route - something BAA were fully aware of. This was the major reason for a number of local councils (including Richmond) objecting to the scheme and BAA had, until now at least, appeared to be focusing on offering those objecting Councils packages of other works aimed at compensating for the inevitable increase in delays. This had met with some success - BAA reached a negotiated settlement in October last year with Surrey, for example, that would have seen BAA fund £11m of compensatory transport works in return for Surrey dropping their opposition to Airtrack.
This announcement, however, seems to suggest that BAA had taken this approach as far as it could go without ultimate success. It also seems to suggest that they were not confident that the public enquiry into the scheme due to commence shortly would come down more heavily on their side than that of the remaining objectors.
It will be interesting to see what the consequences of this announcement ultimately are. Dropping Airtrack does not mean that BAA are no longer determined to see rail access to the airport improved, simply that they likely sense a better opportunity for success in this objective currently lies elsewhere.
As a result, it seems safe to bet that we can expect a sudden flurry of press and political statements featuring the words "Crossrail", "HS2", "Heathrow" and "Benefits" in the coming months.
Thanks to PM and GT for the spots
Are there alternatives, albeit more expensive?
ReplyDeleteTunnelling?
The trouble with Airtrack was it had grown in to a £750M gold plated monster requiring huge public investment.
ReplyDeleteThree routes had problems with 15 level crossings and required a new dedicated train fleet with its own maintenance depot.
However there is a far cheaper alternaive which was the propsed extension of HEx from T5 to a re-built Staines station. This would allow passengers on existing (SWT) trains to change onto HEx; and would be compatible with the proposals to increase capacity on Windsor line trains to 10 carriages.
The extension of the present HEX line to Staines is costed <£100M and well within BAA's £160M proposed contribution to the Airtrack project i.e. it would require no public investment. Also there were no level crossings on this route.
The BAA consultation proposed a 4km HEx new line running alongside the M25 from T5 to the Windsor branch line where it would follow the existing track into Staines.
Windsorian,
ReplyDeleteThe west side of the triangle at Staines could be reinstated so that trains from the reading direction could access Heathrow. OLE from Reading via Egham. This could allow trains from say Oxford to run to Paddington via Heathrow without reversal.
@KG
ReplyDeleteThe re-instated Staines cord was intended to allow the Reading/T5 and Guildford/T5 trains access to/from Heathrow; this was part of the Airtrack proposal that has just been abandoned.
Some of the 15 level crossings were on these routes and down time would be badly affected by additional trains; also diverting existing trains into T5 would reduce capacity into Waterloo.
I cannot remember all the level crossings West of Staines station, but from memory there is one in Staines, 3 in Egham, 1 in Sunnindale, 1 or 2 in Chertsey and 2 in Wokingham.
The level crossing problems were not just East (London side) of Staines !!
KG - there is no practical reason for 'OLE from Reading', indeed Airtrack always had its changeover point near T5 specifically to avoid having OLE into Staines.
ReplyDeleteRail electrification engineers always want to keep dual voltage areas short and simple, and given that the Reading line is already DC electrified for SWT's stock, your proposal is highly unlikely.
There are 4 level crossings in Egham, and because the Reading and Guildford lines diverge after Egham, those four crossings were due to have 16 trains an hour through them. That's more than one very 4 minutes. Manually controlled gates stay down 3 minutes per train.
ReplyDeleteSince all but one of the worst- affected crossings are in Egham, Airtrack could have dealt with the bulk of its level crossing problems by agreeing to replace those crossings with a tunnel.
Interesting to consider what influence local MP Philip Hammond may have had in making this little problem go away.
ReplyDelete@windsorian - yes, I also see HeX to Staines as the logical and sensible successor to Airtrack. We'll see if OLE to Staines happens, or if the trains get retrofitted. I'd guess the former would work out cheaper but the latter will be more politically acceptable.
Giving the people of Staines a regular 30 min journey to Paddington may also be politically attractive...
@meher You're right, for airtrack to fly again the Egham crossings need relief. I'd say diverting the line is more realistic than tunneling though - eg elevated to the west of the M25 East of Egham station and then under to run south of the A30 until it joins the Windsor/Heathrow lines at a new station.
This would eliminate the level crossings which isolate Pooley Green, leaving only the (then) less contentious ones further West. Other routes are possible, and Heathrow/Airtrack or not, something will have to be done eventually.
On the BAA Heathrow website there is an article titled "Heathrow’s vision for future rail access" setting out a review of future rail improvements to Heathrow and the opportunities opened up by Crossrail, HS2 and westerly access from the GWML.
ReplyDeleteAny successor to Airtrack, such as the HEx T5-Staines extension, will form part of its work.
The review programme, called the Wider Heathrow Integrated Rail Strategy (WHIRS)is starting immediately and will form part of the South East Airports Taskfoce work for a Better but not Bigger Heathrow.
When I was in Munich earlier this year the airport train attached carriages en route. Why not attach and detach carriages from the Waterloo - Reading trains at Staines?
ReplyDelete@Paul,
ReplyDeleteForgot to mention in my last post that if HS2 and HS1/HS2 link both go ahead at OOC, then HEx is planned to stop there to/from Paddington.
This would give Staines a HEx link to T5, CTA, OOC and Paddington.
"There are 4 level crossings in Egham, and because the Reading and Guildford lines diverge after Egham, those four crossings were due to have 16 trains an hour through them. That's more than one very 4 minutes. Manually controlled gates stay down 3 minutes per train."
ReplyDeleteIn the peaks currently there are up to 12 tph, equating to one every 5 minutes. However, Airtrack threatened the peak level service on the Reading line which, IMO, is completely unacceptable.
re: Anonymous who went to Munich
ReplyDeleteThe S1 in Munich is the result of a poor compromise - There are already 12 tph on the section of track between Moosach and Neufahrn - The airport would dearly love to add an additional 3 tph going excludively to the airport, to avoid, amongst other things the 4 minute buffer for coupling/de-coupling, but the city won't let them because... yep, level crossing close times. So they have to split existing S-Bahn trains.
Luckily this is Germany, and it is quite likely they'll actually tunnel & quadruple (!) a couple of km of track on the other side of town (at the same time as digging a 2nd main-line sized crossrail tunnel under the city centre for over €2bn)
I know most of the crossings between Richmond & Bracknell from car & train as well, and I sometimes wish we could put a German or 2 in control of UK finance & infrastructure for a decade. Only sometimes though.
The ‘Integrated Strategy’ is that described by Windsorian: an extension of HEx / Crossrail to terminate at Staines. With no through running beyond Staines, the OLE will inevitably be extended into the station, which will need rebuilding. Just achieving this will require some deft political footwork.
ReplyDeleteThe implications of the strategy are interesting and extensive. Until the level crossing problem is sorted out, there will be no through services to Guildford, Reading or Waterloo. Nor will there be a loop back to the Great Western west of the airport. None of our pet projects (links to Gatwick, Southampton, Bristol, etc.) can come about. Capacity constraints on the Great Western line will similarly prevent any non-Crossrail services from north of the airport until the HS2 Heathrow branch is built, which will not be any time soon.
So, ‘change at Staines’ will need to be mirrored by ‘change at Hayes’ for access from the west. Maybe this station will need rebuilding too. And given that Crossrail is already under construction, rebuilding will need some smart planning and consultation footwork. Perhaps the plans will be considered in conjunction with extending Crossrail to Reading.
Then there is the medium term opportunity for long-distance rail access to Heathrow raised by the proposed HS2 Heathrow branch and the electrification of the GW line. BAA will address this opportunity with both eyes glued to resurrecting the third runway project. If they take on board Arup’s proposal for a long-distance station on the GW line / HS2, then the focus will be on providing links from this station to each terminal. Its political importance means that the short-term post-Airtrack development proposals will be designed to support this strategy. I would guess that this means that the through links proposed by Airtrack will not happen.
@ Anon. 15.4.11 16:50
ReplyDeleteFor BAA to privately extend HEx to a re-built Staines station, I agree that OLE all the way is the sensible solution.
The 4km of new track required will be running adjacent to the M25 between J13 & J14 and so will be in the existing transport corridor.
Having sabotaged the full Airtrack proposal because of the level crossing problem, I would hope the Councils would be more accommodating with a privately funded proposal based on the principles of value engeneering.
As part of the Crossrail project BAA are funding the demolition / rebuilding of the Stockley Flyover (Airport Junction) on the GWML; this is to improve the track layout for the slow/fast lines.
However BAA have not included Western Access into their new design; surely this would have provided western access direct into Heathrow ??
Finally my heart flutterd when I read your reference to the Arup proposal on the GWR between West Drayton & Iver; in my opinion this proposal is far superior to Route 3.
Still rooting for a Heathrow Hub station on the GWML and a shuttle down to Staines (that could be extended up to Watford via Uxbridge and Rickmansworth later), rather than a western access (or indeed, airport junction either).
ReplyDeletePrimary importance is for a excellent passenger interchange with the GWML as it makes through services much less important, whilst improving the efficiency for non-airport passengers (not everyone wants a 10+ minute diversion on their service to go via Heathrow!). ...and lets think of the poor passengers of West Drayton ;)
Why not make a rail connection to Feltham and/or Ashford from T4. Obviously you have to go underneath the A30, but then there is a fairly clear corridor along Bedfont Lane !
ReplyDeleteHarjinder Singh
Sint-Truiden, Limburg, Belgium